Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
Karnataka Public Service Commission, Udyoga Soudha, Bengaluru - Appellant
Versus
Vinay Kumar Ramaiah - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 8676 of 2020
Decided On : 26-08-2020
Freedom of Information Act, 2002 – Right to Information Act, 2005 – Sections 18, 19 – Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by competitive examinations) Rules, 1997 – Issue Regarding Selection Process – Petitioner is before this Court seeking for a certiorari to quash Order in Case passed by respondent No.2 – Respondent No.1 filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 and sought for information – Public Information Officer of petitioner by way of endorsement had informed respondent No.1 that in terms of decision of Apex Court in UPSC Vs. Angesh Kumar, (2018) 4 SCC 530 request seeking for answer script with marks awarded to each question cannot be acceded to and as such rejected application of respondent No.1 by informing respondent No.1 that shortly details of marks secured by each of candidates subject wise would be published in petitioners website on a query basis, which could be verified by respondent No.1 – Aggrieved by endorsement respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before first Appellate Authority of petitioner – On account of lockdown imposed due to COVID-19, first Appellate Authority could not dispose off appeal within prescribed time – However, by Order first Appellate Authority dismissed appeal preferred by respondent No.1. – Petitioner contends that while matter was pending before first Appellate Authority, respondent No.1 had approached respondent No.2 Karnataka Information Commission (for short KIC) with a complaint in KIC 78 COM 2020 against petitioner under Section 18(1) of RTI Act – Petitioner had received a notice from respondent No.2 regarding said complaint calling upon petitioner to appear before respondent No.2 – Petitioner received an intimation that hearing will take place – First Appellate Authority had already passed an order rejecting first appeal filed by Respondent No.1 – Held, candidate who has appeared for examination conducted by a public service commission can seek for copies of his own evaluated answer sripts along with marks allotted to each question – Applicant cannot seek for copies of evaluated answer scripts of any other person apart from himself/herself. – In order to make such an application, applicant has to satisfy parameters laid down by Angesh Kumars – Application has to be made in prescribed format and prescribed fees are required to be paid – Information Commission Central or State in event of no public Information Officer being appointed can direct public authority to take such steps as may be necessary for appointment of a public Information Officer – Information Commission, Central or State cannot appoint a Public Information Officer of its own accord in event of direction not being followed – Information Commission - State or Central has no power to remove or dismiss a public Information Officer already appointed by any public Authority for that organization – there is no qualifications prescribed for a Public Information Officer – It is discretion of authority to appoint a competent person as a Public Information Officer – Public Information Officer would be dealing with legal submissions where under decisions of High Court and even Apex Court could be placed before Public Information Officer for consideration in a manner of speaking Public Information Officer would be discharging quasi judicial functions while accepting or rejecting application for information – This aspect may be taken into consideration by Legislature in its wisdom to formulate requirements of qualification, if any, for appointment of a person as a Public Information Officer. – Writ Petition Partly Allowed
JUDGMENT
Suraj Govindaraj, J. - The petitioner i.e. The Karnataka Public Service Commission (for short 'KPSC') is before this Court seeking for a certiorari to quash the Order dated 18.06.2020 in Case No.KIC 78 COM 2020 passed by the respondent No.2.
2. Admit.
3. With the consent of both the counsels, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
4. Facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition are as under:
4.1. By way of notification dated 12.05.2017 recruitment process for filling up of 428 posts of Gazetted Probationers (GP-2015 recruitment) was initiated by the petitioner in terms of the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by competitive examinations) Rules, 1997 ("GP Rules").
4.2. The respondent No.1 being one of the candidates had applied in pursuance of the said notification, on the basis of his performance he stood qualified for the main examination. Respondent No.1 therefore appeared for the main written examination with Registration No.54890.
4.3. On the process of selection being completed, the petitioner published the final selection list on 10.01.2020.
4.4. Subsequent to the said publication, the respondent No.1 filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'RTI Act') on 16.01.2020 and sought for the following information:
"Please provide certified copies of the evaluated answer scripts of Gazetted probationer (GP) 2015 Mains examination pertaining to REG No.54890 (Candidate) of the following subjects with marks awarded to each question (1) General studies-1, (2) General studies -2, (3) General studies -3 (4) General studies -4, (5) Essay and (6) Anthropology Optional (Paper 1 and Paper 2)".
4.5. The Public Information Officer (for short 'PIO') of the petitioner by way of endorsement dated 14.02.2020 had informed respondent No.1 that in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in UPSC Vs. Angesh Kumar, (2018) 4 SCC 530 the request seeking for answer script with marks awarded to each question cannot be acceded to and as such rejected the application of the respondent No.1 by informing the respondent No.1 that shortly the details of the marks secured by each of the candidates subject wise would be published in the petitioner's website on a query basis, which could be verified by respondent No.1.
4.6. Aggrieved by the endorsement dated 14.02.2020, the respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Authority of the petitioner on 28.02.2020.
4.7. On account of the lockdown imposed due to COVID-19, the first Appellate Authority could not dispose off the appeal within the prescribed time. However, by Order dated 01.06.2020, the first Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondent No.1.
4.8. The petitioner contends that while the matter was pending before the first Appellate Authority, the respondent No.1 had approached respondent No.2 Karnataka Information Commission (for short 'KIC') with a complaint in KIC 78 COM 2020 against the petitioner under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act.
4.9. On 18.03.2020, the petitioner had received a notice dated 16.03.2020 from the respondent No.2 regarding the said complaint calling upon the petitioner to appear before the respondent No.2 on 30.03.2020.
4.10. In view of the lockdown imposed, the hearing on 30.03.2020 was cancelled, subsequently, on 15.06.2020, the petitioner received an intimation dated 08.06.2020 that the hearing will take place on 18.06.2020.
4.11. However, by the time the matter was taken up on 18.06.2020, the first Appellate Authority had already passed an order on 01.06.2020 rejecting the first appeal filed by the Respondent No.1. Be that as it may, the Respondent No.2 continued with the matter and on 18.06.2020, respondent No.2 passed the impugned Order at Annexure-A by directing the following:
(a) KIC by quoting Section 19(8)(a)(ii) of the RTI Act has appointed the Controller of Examinations, KPSC as Public Information Officer and Secretary KPSC as the First Appellate Authority.
(b) KIC
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
